Movies Thread

[duluoz]

I was fortunate enough to live in SF in the 90's and got to see a lot of good movies at some grand (and not so grand but still super cool) theaters. I guess The Castro was the granddaddy, they still had a live organ player up front during the pre-movie jockeying for seats. Saw Dead Man there and several others. Hate to say I can't recall the names of other theaters, but I saw Pulp Fiction and Boogie Nights at larger theaters (they installed a disco ball hanging from the ceiling for Boogie Nights) and smaller movies at smaller theaters in the Mission, Trainspotting and one really obscure neuvo-noir based on a Jim Thompson story, This World, Then the Fireworks. I think I was probably one of only a couple of thousand people who saw that one, but I loved it (I was kinda in a personal noir phase myself at the time, so it really hit the spot, the movie, the theater, the Mission district, San Francisco, the whole nine yards)..

Have somehow never been to The Castro but I’ve seen a few at The Roxie.

Bummer that I’ve also never been to any of the famous LA theaters.

 

[breepf]

#5 of 10: "Frankenstein". Grade: B

I'm conflicted by movies adapted from famous source material. If I've already encountered the novel/play/previous movie/comic book/etc, should I hold it against a film that tacks too close to the original source or strays too far from it? I generally try to judge a movie on its own merits and blot out anything in the past related to it. Maybe that opens me up for criticism of my criticism. "If you had read the book", you would have understood the story better. "Because you saw the previous versions of the movie", you don't understand what the director & screenwriter are going for here. Perhaps valid concerns. Perhaps contrarian hokum. So be it. I'll forge ahead.

"Frankenstein" is a beautiful film and worthy of many of its technical nominations. Cinematography, Costume Design, Makeup, Production Design, and Sound were stellar. It should win one or more of these five nominations. In the other categories, we're on less solid footing. The score was reminiscent of something Tim Burton would create. That's fine for an "Edward Scissorhands" with many moments of fancy and wonder, but not so much with a serious gothic narrative. Jacob Elordi, up for Best Supporting Actor, had his moments, but delivered to my eyes a pretty flat performance. Perhaps it was a case of makeup overwhelming acting. It's hard to see the recognition of humanity in dead eyes.

That leaves me with the Adapted Screenplay nom. It was fascinating to me that the women in this movie provided so little connective tissue to the story. They could have been written out entirely, and the movie might have been better. Wasn't the source material here written by a woman? Were women in the novel, and their influence on the two principles, fleshed out in any meaningful way? For a two and 1/2 hour movie, the character development was staggeringly lacking. For goodness sake, tell us who you are and why you're in this movie.

The movie was watchable. It touched on several important themes, including the meaning of humanity, creation, and the sins of fathers (and sons). There is still the potential for a definitive Frankenstein movie. Unfortunately, this "Frankenstein" isn't it.

Mary Shelley probably knew her proto-feminist shit. Her mother is Mary Wollstonecraft; her father was an anarchist; her husband a republican.

To cut women out of the film isn't completely antithetical to the novel.

Arguably, the novel's underlying point is that British society is so thoroughly misogynistic that Viktor Frankenstein would usurp the very reproductive power of women. The Creature is Viktor's doppelganger, the monstrous being responsible for eliminating many of the women around him.

At the same time, though, the novel sometimes suggests that the Creature is analogous to a figure like Eve--the novel externalizes the moral deformity imputed to women in, say, Paradise Lost.

 

[hedge]

Have somehow never been to The Castro but I’ve seen a few at The Roxie.

Bummer that I’ve also never been to any of the famous LA theaters.

The Roxie! That's it! Loved that theater...

 

[hedge]

To cut women out of the film isn't completely antithetical to the novel.

I thought the character of Viktor's wife (or was it his fiance?) was an important if not crucial role in the movie, and that the actress playing her did a great job. Added a lot to the movie, I thought...

 

[breepf]

I thought the character of Viktor's wife (or was it his fiance?) was an important if not crucial role in the movie, and that the actress playing her did a great job. Added a lot to the movie, I thought...

I haven't seen the most recent adaptation. But in the book Viktor goes to great pains to avoid his cousin-fiance. She doesn't appear on the page very often.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Mary Shelley probably knew her proto-feminist shit. Her mother is Mary Wollstonecraft; her father was an anarchist; her husband a republican.

To cut women out of the film isn't completely antithetical to the novel.

Arguably, the novel's underlying point is that British society is so thoroughly misogynistic that Viktor Frankenstein would usurp the very reproductive power of women. The Creature is Viktor's doppelganger, the monstrous being responsible for eliminating many of the women around him.

At the same time, though, the novel sometimes suggests that the Creature is analogous to a figure like Eve--the novel externalizes the moral deformity imputed to women in, say, Paradise Lost.

Interesting. Thanks for the insights. In the movie, a young Viktor played with/studied/obsessed over a small anatomical doll of a woman while his father taught him medicine. He seemed particularly intrigued by the detachable abdomen, which could simulate the stages of pregnancy.

 

[breepf]

Interesting. Thanks for the insights. In the movie, a young Viktor played with/studied/obsessed over a small anatomical doll of a woman while his father taught him medicine. He seemed particularly intrigued by the detachable abdomen, which could simulate the stages of pregnancy.

That's not in the novel, but it sounds like it's trying to capture the gist of the novel.

Wollstonecraft died giving birth to Shelley. And Shelley lost at least one newborn, even writing in her diary about a dream in which she brought it back to life. For that reason, the novel makes a lot of sense too as a story about the awfulness of (19th-century) childbirth.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

I thought the character of Viktor's wife (or was it his fiance?) was an important if not crucial role in the movie, and that the actress playing her did a great job. Added a lot to the movie, I thought...

Wasn't that his brother's fiancée? Interestingly, the woman who played the role ALSO played Viktor's mother. I wonder if the casting was intentional?

 

[UNCMSinLS]

That's not in the novel, but it sounds like it's trying to capture the gist of the novel.

Wollstonecraft died giving birth to Shelley. And Shelley lost at least one newborn, even writing in her diary about a dream in which she brought it back to life. For that reason, the novel makes a lot of sense too as a story about the awfulness of (19th-century) childbirth.

During the scene where Viktor is examining the ivory doll in the presence of his father, the older Dr. Frankenstein says to his son, "Ivory does not bleed, Victor. Flesh does."